Go down in history?

[NikolaiI]

I'm sure this is a topic somewhere buried and this thread would probably be merged if the moderators were doing there job. (j/k! j/k!) Anyway, do you think you will go down in history? Do you want to? Do you plan to, so that you will?

What would you want to go down in history for?

[M Turner]

If you've ever seen the movie "The Decline of Western Civilization Part II: The Metal Years", (Penelope Spheeris, 1988) you probably remember the interviews of amateur musicians. The same question was asked to a good number of them: "What will you do if you don't make it big?" Every single answer was (with slight variations): "I will make it." There was no doubt in their minds about whether they would reach their ultimate goals of stardom or not. Did any of them actually have the talent to accomplish such feats? No; they had the determination and the passion, but not the talent. They sacrificed, literally, everything that would otherwise land them in a steady position when their dreams were not realized. Most were high-school dropouts with bad attitudes and false beliefs of how passion alone can carry someone to great heights in our competitive society, and that is simply not true.

I see the same attitude almost everywhere I look with aspiring artists (whether it be music, visual art, writing, or other). Not all of us can go on book signing tours and have millions of fans, it's simply not possible, nor plausible. You will indeed find the same determined attitude with those artists who did make it to stardom, but I guarantee that their attitude alone did not carry them to where they are now. The sacrifices, in most cases, are phenomenally large. Not only does it take such immense sacrifices, but it takes an embedded talent that most people do not possess. We all have dreams of making significant impacts on society; to be the next Whitman, Bly, Thoreau, Emerson, etc. but the most important thing to keep in mind is what it actually takes to fulfill these dreams. Its one thing to believe yourself that you have what it takes, but its another thing entirely to make others believe, and its not easy.

I hate to disappoint on only my second post, but killing dreams is, often times, nothing more than holding one still who is attempting to elude reality; and that's exactly what these aspirations are in most cases.

[NikolaiI]

If I could go down in history, then I would choose any number of things, but that's not actually a big goal of mine. There are also different audiences to be a history for! I will bet a little money no person here has heard of Elmars Zemgalis, but he's influential enough in several different fields. Not that he's Einstein; he's simply an international chess player who never made grandmaster. And he went down in history for it! IM John Donaldson is a living example of the same type; he's famous in chess circles and has written lots of books! (Including one on Zemgalis.)

Becoming a grandmaster could be compared similaritivively (hey, my spell check says it's OK!) to wanting to be a star, or be an Emerson or Bly. There are 1200-1500 living grandmaster today, compared with many more of lower rank. Yes, it is an impossible dream, but it is actually one that shows how much more important perserverance is than inspiration. The Polgar sisters, for example, became world class chess players (the youngest of the three breaking the ranks of the top 10, while being the only woman in the top 100!!) and it happened all because of their father, who brought them up with it and made them study. Yes, he made them, but they're happy with it (so one of them says in an autobiography; I've met her, she's very nice.) They also played ping-pong couple of hours a day; and this is how chess players become grandmasters (study for hours and hours a day), as well as all physical athelete stars. Einstein said genius was 1% inspiration and 99% perspiration. Gufeld says if one person plays chess 23 hours a day, and one studies 1 hour a day, the studier will win in competition. Yes, it's an impossible goal, but at the same time, it isn't. Yes, talent is needed, but at the same time the intelligence doesn't have to be genius. The Polgar sisters are above average intelligence, not genius, but that's enough to break the very peaks of human ability in their field.

Not that I was planning to take up that side of that particular debate; it's enjoyable enough, but I didn't have that intended. I was actually going to say, to when you said that you need talent to succeed, that actually you need other things as well. Countless unnamed and unknown factors, that could be figured out and are obvious enough; but consider how many people died short of fame, who had great talent and produced great things! Like Hank Williams, who died before his great fame; or Jimi Hendrix who died a premature death, as well as Mozart, Beethoven and others, who were successful it is true, but not in proportion...

I don't actually mean to contradict you, M. It's just what came to mind.

And you actually didn't even answer any of the questions! I am assuming you don't intend to go down in history, and you actually think people who do should give up on it! ;)
All in good friendship.

(Another thing is that chess may be unique in how beneficial study is compared with talent. Certainly it's not the same thing as success in music.
And in fact, talent is important in chess. One person said, the three things important for chess are talent, study, and killer instinct (the desire to rip out the heart of your opponent, and crush it in front of his dying form...oops! kids!) and all three are benefited by a passion for the game. So talent is important- it's just not limited to men of Einstein's or Emerson's or Beethoven's intelligence. True, Fischer needed to be have Fischer-like/level gosu genius to achieve what he did, but you don't need that to be say, 2500 strength, at which point you gain incredible intelligence...

notes: a)what Fischer did was take the chess world by storm: the best grandmasters were 2600; Fischer beat them 22.5-2.5 on his way to the world championship (6-0, 6-0, 8.5-2.5); he took the world of grandmaster chess from 2550-2600 to 2800, 200 points! and he drug the rest of the world up there with him.

b) how grandmasters think: it's just something about patterns...they see them so well; they think differently; it's just that their chess mind can be used analytically else where. it's not something that is so noticeable until you get to the top ranges.)

[schadenfreude]

I wouldn't mind going down in history as a chess grandmaster, but considering that my eight year old cousin killed my queen in her third move, in the first game she played (while I was teaching her to play too, what a coincidence!), I don't think the chess prodigy side of me has shown up yet.
You seem to know quite a lot about chess though, NikolaiI. For that fantastic insight into the chess world, I have put you down as the Chess Expert in my history book.

Forgive me for sounding sentimental, but I find that I am amazed by someone else's talents almost everyday. I have a friend who is a fantastic artist- there is something different about her artwork, something to do with the way she uses black lines- but she might never reach fame and success. But does going down in history ever matter that much? It's nice to be immortalised on paper, I'd admit that, but fame never recognises all talents.

Well, since I am a very egocentric, selfish person, I'd like to go down in history as The Person Who Discovered Sentient Beings in Space. Or maybe The Person Who had Magical Powers. Or I'll just write my own history book.

[M Turner]

And you actually didn't even answer any of the questions! I am assuming you don't intend to go down in history, and you actually think people who do should give up on it!


I didn't mean to come off as sounding like people should give up, but in our "enlightened" society today there are so many artists with great talent, which is a wonderful thing, but makes it very hard to distinguish yourself as an artist in any form. Just simply do what you love, but don't quit your day job prematurely.

As far as intending to go down in history or not, the person who devotes all of his time getting his name out there on the market and submitting works to publishers is the person who intends to go down in history, but the decision isn't ultimately up to him in any case.

But do I think I'll go down in history? Well, that's impossible to tell, but I wouldn't reject fame if it showed up on my doorstep one day.

Matt

P.S. similaritivively is wrong on my spell check ;)

[Granny5]

I will go down in history as a wife who was completely in love with her husband, a good daughter, a good sister, a very good friend, good mother and a wonderful granny. My grandkids will tell their kids about me and the stories I told them about my Mother and her Mother and my Dad and his Dad and so on and so on. As long as someone knows of me and loves me like families love each other after they are gone, I'll live forever, just like my Mom and Dad and their Moms and Dads and so on and so on.

[Bakiryu]

I'll go down in history as a journalist and feminist, (I hope so.) But if that doesn't work I'll just become a cult leader :lol:

[Granny5]

I'll go down in history as a journalist and feminist, (I hope so.) But if that doesn't work I'll just become a cult leader :lol:

Good deal! What kind of cult? I may want to join.

[Countess]

Anyway, do you think you will go down in history? ?

No.


Do you want to?

My writing - yes.


Do you plan to, so that you will??

God could descend from the sky and proclaim it, but seeing as it is me, nobody would listen, so no.


What would you want to go down in history for?

I just want what I write to be read. That it all.

[Poppy]

I will go down in history as a wife who was completely in love with her husband, a good daughter, a good sister, a very good friend, good mother and a wonderful granny.

Yes you will my dear!!!!;)

[Granny5]

No.



My writing - yes.



God could descend from the sky and proclaim it, but seeing as it is me, nobody would listen, so no.



I just want what I write to be read. That it all.

Countess, it's always good to see you here. I believe you have the ability to do some great writing. Everything I've read has been very good. You have to keep writing and keep your aim in sight.

[samercury]

Everybody goes down in somebody's story so...

[Dori]

Just a little side note: I think most people who devote their lives to 'going down in history' will die unhappy.

[Themis]

What would you want to go down in history for?

For being awarded the Nobel prize in literature. And I'll get it, let's just wait sixty years. ;)


@Dori: I don't think anyone really does that. For me, I'd really love to become famous but as long as you work hard and don't let it all get to your head, I don't think there's any harm in wanting to "go down in history".

[Dori]

For being awarded the Nobel prize in literature. And I'll get it, let's just wait sixty years. ;)


@Dori: I don't think anyone really does that. For me, I'd really love to become famous but as long as you work hard and don't let it all get to your head, I don't think there's any harm in wanting to "go down in history".

I'm sure there are some, but that's not the point. I was just trying to say it was an unrealistic goal for most.

[Granny5]

For being awarded the Nobel prize in literature. And I'll get it, let's just wait sixty years. ;)


@Dori: I don't think anyone really does that. For me, I'd really love to become famous but as long as you work hard and don't let it all get to your head, I don't think there's any harm in wanting to "go down in history".

Could you speed it up some, Themis? I don't know that I'll last 60 more years. I do believe that you could do it.

[Themis]

Could you speed it up some, Themis? I don't know that I'll last 60 more years. I do believe that you could do it.

:D Thanks.

But since the Nobel prize in literature went to an Austrian in 2004, I'm afraid the jury won't award it to an other Austrian any time soon. But I'll try to write around 30 books within the next twenty years, so maybe that will move them some. ;)

[SleepyWitch]

:D Thanks.

But since the Nobel prize in literature went to an Austrian in 2004, I'm afraid the jury won't award it to an other Austrian any time soon. But I'll try to write around 30 books within the next twenty years, so maybe that will move them some. ;)
who was that?
on the other hand, they might decide that they have neglected Austria so long that they'll have to make up for it by awarding it to lots of Austrians in a row from now on :)
besides, they often give the nobel prize to little-known authors from obscure little backwater countries... like Turkey... or Germany :D *joking* sorry, Austrian-bashing is Bavarians' fave pastime :blush: I don't mean it :) I'm beginning to regret I wasn't born in Austria, bc. I saw a very good-looking Austrian actor at the theatre the other day and my fave band are from Austria, too :)

back on topic: I don't wanna go down in history for anything. after I graduate, I'd like to do lots of social projects in my free time to help poor ppl (esp. kids), but only on a small, local scale

[Themis]

*joking* sorry, Austrian-bashing is Bavarians' fave pastime :blush: I don't mean it :)

Oh, don't worry about it. We like to share a lot of jokes about our dear neighbours in our spare-time. ;)

(Austrian band? We have bands? Which band?)

In 2004 the Nobel prize in literature was awarded to Elfriede Jelinek but there really is no need to look her or any of her books up. I wish they'd awarded the prize to someone else.

[SleepyWitch]

Oh, don't worry about it. We like to share a lot of jokes about our dear neighbours in our spare-time. ;)

(Austrian band? We have bands? Which band?)

In 2004 the Nobel prize in literature was awarded to Elfriede Jelinek but there really is no need to look her or any of her books up. I wish they'd awarded the prize to someone else.

hehe, got any German jokes? I bet they are very silly :) I like silly jokes.
about the band, they are Son of the Velvet Rat (from Graz). they sing in English, of course :D
is Christiane Nöstlinger (correct name?)Austrian?

[applepie]

I've no desire to go down in history. I'll be happy to be remembered by my children and grandchildren, maybe even great grandchildren if I live that long. I've always wanted to do well in my life, but I've no real aspiration for fame. If I'm destined to be famous, I would be much happier if people discovered me after I was gone. I want it after I'm dead and I don't have to worry over the consequences of being so well known.

[blazeofglory]

I'm sure this is a topic somewhere buried and this thread would probably be merged if the moderators were doing there job. (j/k! j/k!) Anyway, do you think you will go down in history? Do you want to? Do you plan to, so that you will?

What would you want to go down in history for?

Nikolai, in fact I do not beleive in going back, down the passage of history nor ahead of it. For I want to live for the moment. This moment is in fact truer to me and I feel every second of it not the past and future.

[stlukesguild]

If you've ever seen the movie "The Decline of Western Civilization Part II: The Metal Years", (Penelope Spheeris, 1988) you probably remember the interviews of amateur musicians. The same question was asked to a good number of them: "What will you do if you don't make it big?" Every single answer was (with slight variations): "I will make it." There was no doubt in their minds about whether they would reach their ultimate goals of stardom or not. Did any of them actually have the talent to accomplish such feats? No; they had the determination and the passion, but not the talent.

Here I might just think to ask "what is talent?" I don't personally believe in an innate, unlearned ability. Certainly the various studies of multiple intelligences suggest that some of us are more wired for certain forms of thinking than for others... but this still demands learning. Mozart may have been an amazing child prodigy... but he was educated in music from a very early age. perhaps rather than talent I'd go along with the notion of intelligence... even genius... but I think that this must go hand-in-hand with determination, passion, and effort. There are any number of intelligent (talented?) even brilliant persons who will never achieve the goal of artistic "immortality" because they did not have the drive or determination. Actually... from my own experience in the realm of the visual arts, I would suggest that here are far more of these than of the artist who has the drive but lacks the genius. I have seen any number of artists with real ability fade away and be surpassed by artists of far less "talent" because they lack the determination and the drive. Einstein's quote is certainly quite apy (Genius is 1% inspiration and 99% perspiration) but so is Picasso's: "Inspiration exists, but it has to find you working."

They sacrificed, literally, everything that would otherwise land them in a steady position when their dreams were not realized. Most were high-school dropouts with bad attitudes and false beliefs of how passion alone can carry someone to great heights in our competitive society, and that is simply not true.

One certainly must be realistic in one's goals... and realize that these goals also demand certain things beyond the mere desire. No matter how much I may want it (very little, actually) I will never be a major league baseball player. That goal is simply not realistic. Neither is the goal of being a heavy metal star. It is dependent upon far too many uncontrollable external factors. The goal of becoming a successful musician able to survive off of his or her music alone... that is not an unrealistic goal... but it is certainly going to be demanding of far more than dropping out of school and developing a stylish bad attitude.

I see the same attitude almost everywhere I look with aspiring artists (whether it be music, visual art, writing, or other). Not all of us can go on book signing tours and have millions of fans, it's simply not possible, nor plausible.

Of course... but one should not confuse the unrealistic notion of stardom with the desire to live as an artist... or even to achieve something of lasting value as an artist.

You will indeed find the same determined attitude with those artists who did make it to stardom, but I guarantee that their attitude alone did not carry them to where they are now. The sacrifices, in most cases, are phenomenally large. Not only does it take such immense sacrifices, but it takes an embedded talent that most people do not possess.

Again... how do we recognize this "talent"? Within my own field of the visual arts, for example there have been any number of artists who had far more "talent" in one way or another than did some of those artists who did eventually earn a position within the canon of art history. Cezanne and Jackson Pollack are certainly prime examples. Both of them might honestly be called "duffers"... lacking any real ability to draw or paint within the standards of their era. However... they certainly did have the determination and the drive to continue working at their art in spite of all criticism... and to develop their own personal artistic vocabularies. Attitude alone certainly won't amount to much. I remember my art school days when there were any number of students who honestly believed that the prime elements needed to succeed as an artist included dressing the part, smoking, drinking excessively... the who Jackson Pollack/Abstract Expressionist myth. They would almost be angered by the artists (who surely couldn't be serious... they didn't fit the bohemian look) who dressed in sports t-shirts or sweatshirts and were somewhat athletic, or who were very studious and loved to read and study art history, etc... One learns sooner or later, however, that the attitude and the dress are meaningless... it's the results that matter.

We all have dreams of making significant impacts on society; to be the next Whitman, Bly, Thoreau, Emerson, etc. but the most important thing to keep in mind is what it actually takes to fulfill these dreams. Its one thing to believe yourself that you have what it takes, but its another thing entirely to make others believe, and its not easy.

I hate to disappoint on only my second post, but killing dreams is, often times, nothing more than holding one still who is attempting to elude reality; and that's exactly what these aspirations are in most cases.

Being a realist is fine... and certainly one must respect the person who has made peace with himself or herself and his or her position. Artistic achievement... life itself many might argue... demands the ability to dream. One must wonder... did Whitman ever dream of being Whitman... of have achieving the preeminent position he holds in American literature?

[Petrarch's Love]

This thread is giving me the sinking feeling that my dreams of becoming Immortal by producing literary criticism may not pan out!:bawling: :D

Seriously though, it is highly improbable that I'm going to go down in history, and I don't really have a deep ambition to. Since many people who do go down in history don't receive said recognition until after they're dead anyway, it seems unlikely that I'd be around to appreciate it even if by some strange twist of fate I did. Besides, isn't this really the wrong question? I'm not ambitious about getting the kind of recognition that the great writers have received, but I don't think I'll ever stop being ambitious to produce things as entertaining/beautiful/memorable as they did. Do I really think I'll ever succeed? Probably not. But the point of writing or painting or composing etc. is to produce amazing art, whether it goes down in history or not. Certainly the more people who enjoy one's art, the better, but the amount of effort you put into creating something is not proportional to the number of people you expect will read it.

[stlukesguild]

The next William Hazlitt or Samuel Johnson, Petrarch?:lol: You certainly have more of a chance than I do with getting my art work into a museum any time soon. Less competition, you know. And you do have the advantage of having an ability that is strangely lacking in the writings of most contemporary lit critics. I speak, of course, of intelligibility... you can actually understand what you are writing. Of course... I often get the feeling that many imagine this to be a detriment.:lol:

[Petrarch's Love]

The next William Hazlitt or Samuel Johnson, Petrarch? You certainly have more of a chance than I do with getting my art work into a museum any time soon. Less competition, you know. And you do have the advantage of having an ability that is strangely lacking in the writings of most contemporary lit critics. I speak, of course, of intelligibility... you can actually understand what you are writing. Of course... I often get the feeling that many imagine this to be a detriment.

Oh no! My writing is intelligible? Alas, I will never achieve Critical fame! I'd better see what I can do about expressing myself more opaquely. :lol:

[stlukesguild]

Alas, I will never achieve Critical fame! I'd better see what I can do about expressing myself more opaquely.

Get thee to Saint Jean (Baudrillard), young lady, by all means!:lol: Only he may teach thee the true meaning of opacity.

[Taliesin]

Darwin's award

[Walter]

No history shaping up here.
(And that's the long version of the answer.)